That rhetoric and those protests are happening in the UK right now, which is why I am worried about the tide shifting.

I agree not everyone with conservative views is far right. But there’s an important distinction: wanting controlled immigration or lower taxes is mainstream right wing. Calling refugees “invaders”, pushing “replacement” conspiracies and attacking hotels housing asylum seekers is far right…

Perhaps. But it feels that there tide is slowly creeping in that direction can that’s reflected in the rhetoric, protests and polls at the moment. Polls indicate may share the sentiment.

There has to be hope – ways to counter the lies and rebuild something better. What keeps you fighting for this country and countering the hateful spite coming out of far-right protesters at the moment?

13/ We didn’t just raise concerns - we submitted detailed, verifiable evidence which could have been followed up. DAUK’s submission was ignored in full. Not even cited. That tells me all I need to know about how seriously frontline doctors were taken in this review.

12/ I want to share a tangible concern: what's to stop a PA in gastro from doing scopes? Nothing. Now add credentialled prescribing - and you have non-doctors sedating patients for invasive procedures...

11/ Hundreds of doctors submitted safety concerns — including @TheBMA and @TheDA_UK. DAUK was verifiable, specific and addressed key gaps in the BMA's own dossier. Yet the Leng Review ignored it entirely. Not cited. Not analysed. Not even acknowledged

10/ And what does the review propose as oversight? A new faculty for PAs under Royal Colleges — the same failed model that led to current confusion. This isn’t reform but reinventing a wheel.

Furthermore what evidence said this was fair game? So far I’ve only seen evidence of unlawful prescribing of controlled drugs and ionising radiation.

9/ The prescribing and IRMER recommendations are especially reckless. You can’t shortcut pharmacology, radiology and pathophysiology into “credentialling modules”. These are advanced medical skills, not bolt-on tasks.

8/ The financial logic here is absurd. Two-year supervised training, enhanced oversight, + higher pay bands - all while refusing full pay restoration for doctors who trained 10+ years. It’s cheaper only if you don’t value safety.

7/ The review promotes “complementarity” rather than subordination. But these are assistants, not doctors-lite. Using language that implies clinical equivalence is not just confusing, it’s strategically misleading.

6/ “Credentialling” creates a separate track: from novice to “advanced” assistant, with escalating clinical rights — but no requirement for medical school, postgrad exams, or specialist training. It’s a parallel system.

4/ The “no undifferentiated patients” recommendation? It contains a glaring exception: “minor ailments in adults”. Many life-threatening conditions start that way — breathlessness, cough, headache, rash. This loophole is dangerous.